books

screenplays

Exile (full-length drama) Finalist, WriteMovies; Quarterfinalist, Fade-In.
LJ lives in a U . S. of A., with a new Three Strikes Law: first crime, rehab; second crime, prison; third crime, you’re simply kicked out – permanently exiled to a designated remote area, to fend for yourself without the benefits of society. At least he used to live in that new U. S. of A. He’s just committed his third crime.

What Happened to Tom (full-length drama) Semifinalist, Moondance.
This guy wakes up to find his body’s been hijacked and turned into a human kidney dialysis machine – for nine months.

Aiding the Enemy (short drama 15min)
When Private Ann Jones faces execution for “aiding the enemy,” she points to American weapons manufacturers who sell to whatever country is in the market.

Bang Bang (short drama 30min) Finalist, Gimme Credit; Quarter-finalist, American Gem.
When a young boy playing “Cops and Robbers” jumps out at a man passing by, the man shoots him, thinking the boy’s toy gun is real. Who’s to blame?

Foreseeable (short drama 30min)
An awful choice in a time of war. Whose choice was it really?

Two Women, Road Trip, Extraterrestrial (full-length comedy)
When an independent activist and her frustrated office temp buddy embark on a quest for a chocolate bar, they pick up a hitchhiking extraterrestrial who’s stopped on Earth to ask for directions. They help her get the information she needs – and discover it’s easier to get a gun in this country than a little scientific knowledge – and decide to go with her. To become chocolate bartenders.

Boston Legal: Bang Bang (spec script) Semifinalist,Scriptapalooza.

Balls (short mockumentary 10min)
A hilarious mockumentary about men playing with balls

Here Comes the Bride (5min)
You’ll never get married again.

Let Me Entertain You (5min)
Is it a slippery slope from screen idol to snuff film?

Take Care of Your Mom While I’m Gone (3-5min)
She’s an adult. She needs a ten-year-old to take care of her?

My Life in Danger (short drama 3-5min)
When does attempted rape warrant self-defence of deadly force?

Size Matters (3-5min)
What if women were the taller sex? Ask any short man.

I am Eve (10min)
An examination exposing the irrationality and injustice of Eve’s role in Judaeo-Christianity.

If Then (5-10 min)
The end of our lives as we know them. Can’t say we didn’t see it coming.

Crime of Passion (short drama 3-5min)
The perfect solution to crimes of “passion”

Minding Our Own Business (20 min)
A collection of skits (including “The Price is Not Quite Right,” “Singin’ in the (Acid) Rain,” “Adverse Reactions,” “The Band-Aid Solution,” and “See Jane. See Dick.”) with a not-so-subtle environmental message

The Missing Link (short comedy 3-5min)
Two women and an alien enter a bar…

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the term “conscientious objector” – especially as it is used, to identify those entitled for exclusion from military service (whether in body or in wallet) on the basis of moral principles. I object to military service, on that basis, but I don’t have a conscience.

Phrases such as “Follow your conscience” and “Do what your conscience tells you” suggest that one’s conscience is a fixed sort of thing, an unchanging absolute. Indeed, it often sounds like one’s conscience is innate, something we’re born with. And something quite separate from us, a sort of homonculus, or at least an ‘inner voice’ (the voice of God?). Chomsky may have proven that there are innate structures of language in the human brain, but to date, to my knowledge, no one has proven there are, in the human brain, innate moral principles. Nor, despite a dictionary definition of conscience as “the moral sense of right and wrong”, has such a sixth (?) sense been established.

On the contrary, our ‘conscience’ is acquired: it is the collection of moral principles, or more accurately, since the acquisition occurs before we have the cognitive competence to handle principles, it is the collection of moral habits, that have been inculcated during childhood. So our conscience is dependent on our parents’ moral principles, or habits, and to some extent on the principles manifested by our community, our society. Our conscience amounts to nothing more than a moral reflex. We say “Examine your conscience”, but we do not intend a critical examination; rather, we mean a simple examination of discovery. We never say “Develop your conscience”‘ or, God forbid, “Reconsider your conscience”.

And yet surely that’s what our attitude toward moral principles should be: moral principles should not be inherited by indoctrination, but developed and maintained by careful, rational thought. I propose therefore that we replace the word “conscience” with “ethics” – “ethics” refers, of course, not to one’s ‘sense‘ but to one’s system (hopefully it’s a system, a coherent collection) of moral principles. And those of us who object, on ethical grounds, to military service, and are therefore granted exemption, should be called “ethical objectors.”

Now many people may be reluctant to replace ‘conscience’ with ‘ethics’ because, well, whose ethics? But that’s exactly the question that must be asked. And it should be asked of conscience as well. I suspect there’s a rather naive presumption of homogeneity with respect to conscience: when someone advises you to follow your conscience, my guess is that that person assumes you will choose to do the right thing, which is the same right thing he or she would do. But what if my conscience tells me to torture? What is the response to that – ‘Your conscience must be wrong’? Until we ask whose ethics, we’re avoiding the issue, skating on the thin ice of individual relativism, the very weakest of ethical systems: X is right because I think it’s right (I followed my conscience). It’s circular and most unhelpful: Why do you think it’s right? How do you come to that thought? What makes you think it’s right? (Where did you get your conscience from?)

The fear, of course, is that the question has no answer, that we will set ourselves adrift on a sea of cultural relativism. Not true: we’re capable of making anchors. We must confront the fact that we decide what’s right and wrong, and surely deciding consciously is better than deciding unconsciously. Surely it is better to identify and compare, to critique, to evaluate, to choose our moral principles. And then to act, and lobby, according to those principles, instead of merely according to our ‘conscience’.